Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Characteristic	N	Overall, N = 701	control, N = 351	treatment, N = 351	p-value2
age	70	50.92 ± 12.67 (25 - 74)	50.48 ± 13.41 (25 - 74)	51.36 ± 12.06 (31 - 72)	0.775
gender	70				0.794
f		49 (70%)	24 (69%)	25 (71%)
m		21 (30%)	11 (31%)	10 (29%)
occupation	70				0.936
day_training		1 (1.4%)	1 (2.9%)	0 (0%)
full_time		6 (8.6%)	4 (11%)	2 (5.7%)
homemaker		6 (8.6%)	3 (8.6%)	3 (8.6%)
other		2 (2.9%)	0 (0%)	2 (5.7%)
part_time		13 (19%)	6 (17%)	7 (20%)
retired		15 (21%)	7 (20%)	8 (23%)
self_employ		2 (2.9%)	1 (2.9%)	1 (2.9%)
student		1 (1.4%)	0 (0%)	1 (2.9%)
t_and_e		2 (2.9%)	1 (2.9%)	1 (2.9%)
unemploy		22 (31%)	12 (34%)	10 (29%)
marital	70				0.924
cohabitation		1 (1.4%)	0 (0%)	1 (2.9%)
divore		8 (11%)	5 (14%)	3 (8.6%)
married		15 (21%)	7 (20%)	8 (23%)
none		40 (57%)	20 (57%)	20 (57%)
seperation		3 (4.3%)	2 (5.7%)	1 (2.9%)
widow		3 (4.3%)	1 (2.9%)	2 (5.7%)
edu	70				0.992
bachelor		20 (29%)	9 (26%)	11 (31%)
diploma		12 (17%)	7 (20%)	5 (14%)
hd_ad		3 (4.3%)	2 (5.7%)	1 (2.9%)
postgraduate		6 (8.6%)	3 (8.6%)	3 (8.6%)
primary		5 (7.1%)	2 (5.7%)	3 (8.6%)
secondary_1_3		7 (10%)	3 (8.6%)	4 (11%)
secondary_4_5		15 (21%)	8 (23%)	7 (20%)
secondary_6_7		2 (2.9%)	1 (2.9%)	1 (2.9%)
fam_income	70				0.918
10001_12000		4 (5.7%)	1 (2.9%)	3 (8.6%)
12001_14000		4 (5.7%)	2 (5.7%)	2 (5.7%)
14001_16000		5 (7.1%)	2 (5.7%)	3 (8.6%)
16001_18000		2 (2.9%)	1 (2.9%)	1 (2.9%)
18001_20000		4 (5.7%)	3 (8.6%)	1 (2.9%)
20001_above		10 (14%)	6 (17%)	4 (11%)
2001_4000		9 (13%)	6 (17%)	3 (8.6%)
4001_6000		10 (14%)	4 (11%)	6 (17%)
6001_8000		7 (10%)	4 (11%)	3 (8.6%)
8001_10000		6 (8.6%)	2 (5.7%)	4 (11%)
below_2000		9 (13%)	4 (11%)	5 (14%)
medication	70	60 (86%)	31 (89%)	29 (83%)	0.495
onset_duration	70	15.38 ± 11.60 (0 - 56)	16.98 ± 12.86 (1 - 56)	13.78 ± 10.13 (0 - 35)	0.251
onset_age	70	35.53 ± 13.88 (14 - 64)	33.50 ± 12.73 (14 - 58)	37.57 ± 14.86 (15 - 64)	0.222
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic	N	Overall, N = 701	control, N = 351	treatment, N = 351	p-value2
recovery_stage_a	70	3.14 ± 1.24 (1 - 5)	3.14 ± 1.29 (1 - 5)	3.14 ± 1.22 (1 - 5)	>0.999
recovery_stage_b	70	17.99 ± 2.63 (9 - 23)	17.86 ± 2.70 (9 - 23)	18.11 ± 2.59 (13 - 23)	0.686
ras_confidence	70	30.44 ± 4.78 (19 - 43)	29.71 ± 4.23 (19 - 40)	31.17 ± 5.24 (20 - 43)	0.205
ras_willingness	70	12.07 ± 1.95 (7 - 15)	11.94 ± 1.89 (9 - 15)	12.20 ± 2.03 (7 - 15)	0.585
ras_goal	70	17.59 ± 2.98 (12 - 24)	17.51 ± 3.00 (12 - 24)	17.66 ± 3.00 (12 - 24)	0.843
ras_reliance	70	13.20 ± 2.84 (8 - 20)	12.89 ± 2.60 (8 - 18)	13.51 ± 3.06 (8 - 20)	0.358
ras_domination	70	10.01 ± 2.16 (3 - 15)	10.43 ± 1.96 (6 - 15)	9.60 ± 2.30 (3 - 14)	0.110
symptom	70	30.06 ± 9.95 (14 - 56)	31.00 ± 9.76 (14 - 52)	29.11 ± 10.19 (15 - 56)	0.432
slof_work	70	22.53 ± 4.85 (10 - 30)	22.51 ± 4.43 (15 - 30)	22.54 ± 5.30 (10 - 30)	0.981
slof_relationship	70	25.77 ± 6.02 (11 - 35)	25.37 ± 6.28 (13 - 35)	26.17 ± 5.81 (11 - 35)	0.582
satisfaction	70	20.81 ± 6.89 (5 - 32)	19.26 ± 6.62 (5 - 29)	22.37 ± 6.90 (5 - 32)	0.058
mhc_emotional	70	11.33 ± 3.82 (3 - 18)	10.89 ± 3.42 (3 - 17)	11.77 ± 4.19 (4 - 18)	0.336
mhc_social	70	15.11 ± 5.50 (6 - 30)	15.37 ± 5.56 (7 - 30)	14.86 ± 5.51 (6 - 26)	0.699
mhc_psychological	70	22.39 ± 6.11 (6 - 36)	21.94 ± 5.79 (10 - 36)	22.83 ± 6.47 (6 - 36)	0.548
resilisnce	70	16.63 ± 4.53 (6 - 27)	16.26 ± 4.37 (6 - 24)	17.00 ± 4.72 (7 - 27)	0.496
social_provision	70	13.71 ± 2.94 (5 - 20)	13.26 ± 2.56 (8 - 20)	14.17 ± 3.25 (5 - 20)	0.195
els_value_living	70	17.33 ± 2.95 (5 - 25)	16.66 ± 2.38 (12 - 22)	18.00 ± 3.33 (5 - 25)	0.056
els_life_fulfill	70	12.90 ± 3.27 (4 - 20)	11.89 ± 3.05 (5 - 17)	13.91 ± 3.21 (4 - 20)	0.008
els	70	30.23 ± 5.57 (9 - 45)	28.54 ± 4.45 (20 - 36)	31.91 ± 6.12 (9 - 45)	0.010
social_connect	70	26.76 ± 9.31 (8 - 48)	27.74 ± 8.25 (8 - 45)	25.77 ± 10.28 (8 - 48)	0.380
shs_agency	70	14.59 ± 4.93 (3 - 24)	13.89 ± 4.64 (3 - 21)	15.29 ± 5.18 (3 - 24)	0.238
shs_pathway	70	16.70 ± 3.95 (4 - 24)	16.23 ± 3.85 (8 - 24)	17.17 ± 4.04 (4 - 23)	0.321
shs	70	31.29 ± 8.40 (7 - 47)	30.11 ± 8.13 (13 - 45)	32.46 ± 8.62 (7 - 47)	0.246
esteem	70	12.70 ± 1.49 (10 - 18)	12.86 ± 1.57 (10 - 18)	12.54 ± 1.40 (10 - 16)	0.381
mlq_search	70	14.91 ± 3.38 (3 - 21)	14.80 ± 3.17 (6 - 21)	15.03 ± 3.63 (3 - 21)	0.780
mlq_presence	70	13.60 ± 4.13 (3 - 21)	13.51 ± 3.57 (5 - 20)	13.69 ± 4.67 (3 - 21)	0.864
mlq	70	28.51 ± 6.71 (6 - 42)	28.31 ± 5.95 (12 - 40)	28.71 ± 7.47 (6 - 42)	0.805
empower	70	19.60 ± 4.12 (6 - 28)	19.11 ± 3.82 (11 - 24)	20.09 ± 4.41 (6 - 28)	0.328
ismi_resistance	70	14.60 ± 2.70 (5 - 20)	14.31 ± 2.27 (11 - 19)	14.89 ± 3.08 (5 - 20)	0.380
ismi_discrimation	70	11.33 ± 3.24 (5 - 19)	12.26 ± 2.86 (5 - 18)	10.40 ± 3.37 (5 - 19)	0.015
sss_affective	70	10.00 ± 3.87 (3 - 18)	10.57 ± 3.49 (3 - 18)	9.43 ± 4.19 (3 - 18)	0.219
sss_behavior	70	9.70 ± 3.99 (3 - 18)	10.49 ± 3.97 (3 - 18)	8.91 ± 3.92 (3 - 18)	0.100
sss_cognitive	70	8.27 ± 4.01 (3 - 18)	8.66 ± 4.26 (3 - 18)	7.89 ± 3.77 (3 - 18)	0.425
sss	70	27.97 ± 11.03 (9 - 54)	29.71 ± 10.56 (9 - 54)	26.23 ± 11.36 (9 - 54)	0.188
1Mean ± SD (Range)
2Two Sample t-test

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Group	Characteristic	Beta	SE1	95% CI1	p-value
recovery_stage_a	(Intercept)	3.14	0.207	2.74, 3.55
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.000	0.293	-0.574, 0.574	1.00
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.137	0.291	-0.434, 0.708	0.641
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.205	0.416	-0.611, 1.02	0.625
	Pseudo R square	0.011
recovery_stage_b	(Intercept)	17.9	0.454	17.0, 18.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.257	0.642	-1.00, 1.52	0.690
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.333	0.608	-1.52, 0.858	0.586
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.810	0.868	-0.892, 2.51	0.355
	Pseudo R square	0.016
ras_confidence	(Intercept)	29.7	0.847	28.1, 31.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.46	1.198	-0.890, 3.80	0.227
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.367	0.818	-1.24, 1.97	0.656
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.186	1.171	-2.11, 2.48	0.875
	Pseudo R square	0.025
ras_willingness	(Intercept)	11.9	0.337	11.3, 12.6
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.257	0.477	-0.677, 1.19	0.591
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.638	0.321	-1.27, -0.009	0.053
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.497	0.459	-0.403, 1.40	0.285
	Pseudo R square	0.024
ras_goal	(Intercept)	17.5	0.529	16.5, 18.6
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.143	0.748	-1.32, 1.61	0.849
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.922	0.552	-2.00, 0.161	0.102
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.49	0.790	-0.057, 3.04	0.065
	Pseudo R square	0.025
ras_reliance	(Intercept)	12.9	0.465	12.0, 13.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.629	0.658	-0.661, 1.92	0.342
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.473	0.409	-0.328, 1.27	0.253
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.579	0.585	-0.568, 1.73	0.328
	Pseudo R square	0.041
ras_domination	(Intercept)	10.4	0.363	9.72, 11.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.829	0.513	-1.83, 0.177	0.110
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.579	0.463	-1.49, 0.328	0.217
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.31	0.662	0.008, 2.60	0.054
	Pseudo R square	0.028
symptom	(Intercept)	31.0	1.681	27.7, 34.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.89	2.378	-6.55, 2.77	0.430
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.105	1.186	-2.22, 2.43	0.930
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.737	1.698	-4.07, 2.59	0.667
	Pseudo R square	0.012
slof_work	(Intercept)	22.5	0.827	20.9, 24.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.029	1.170	-2.26, 2.32	0.981
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.695	0.619	-1.91, 0.517	0.268
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.562	0.886	-2.30, 1.17	0.529
	Pseudo R square	0.010
slof_relationship	(Intercept)	25.4	1.008	23.4, 27.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.800	1.426	-1.99, 3.59	0.576
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-1.02	0.900	-2.79, 0.743	0.263
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.561	1.288	-1.96, 3.09	0.666
	Pseudo R square	0.011
satisfaction	(Intercept)	19.3	1.182	16.9, 21.6
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	3.11	1.672	-0.162, 6.39	0.066
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.733	1.187	-1.59, 3.06	0.540
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.26	1.699	-4.59, 2.07	0.462
	Pseudo R square	0.037
mhc_emotional	(Intercept)	10.9	0.640	9.63, 12.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.886	0.905	-0.888, 2.66	0.331
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.446	0.542	-0.615, 1.51	0.415
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.14	0.775	-2.66, 0.378	0.149
	Pseudo R square	0.009
mhc_social	(Intercept)	15.4	0.963	13.5, 17.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.514	1.362	-3.18, 2.16	0.707
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.03	0.907	-0.750, 2.80	0.264
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.56	1.298	-4.11, 0.980	0.235
	Pseudo R square	0.014
mhc_psychological	(Intercept)	21.9	1.086	19.8, 24.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.886	1.536	-2.12, 3.90	0.566
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.594	1.026	-1.42, 2.61	0.566
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.66	1.469	-4.54, 1.22	0.264
	Pseudo R square	0.005
resilisnce	(Intercept)	16.3	0.730	14.8, 17.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.743	1.032	-1.28, 2.77	0.474
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.182	0.720	-1.23, 1.59	0.802
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.319	1.030	-1.70, 2.34	0.758
	Pseudo R square	0.011
social_provision	(Intercept)	13.3	0.507	12.3, 14.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.914	0.717	-0.490, 2.32	0.205
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.922	0.556	-2.01, 0.169	0.104
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.844	0.796	-0.716, 2.40	0.294
	Pseudo R square	0.050
els_value_living	(Intercept)	16.7	0.494	15.7, 17.6
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.34	0.699	-0.028, 2.71	0.058
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.273	0.450	-0.610, 1.16	0.547
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.221	0.645	-1.48, 1.04	0.733
	Pseudo R square	0.046
els_life_fulfill	(Intercept)	11.9	0.514	10.9, 12.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	2.03	0.727	0.603, 3.45	0.007
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.899	0.487	-0.055, 1.85	0.072
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.928	0.697	-2.29, 0.437	0.190
	Pseudo R square	0.081
els	(Intercept)	28.5	0.902	26.8, 30.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	3.37	1.276	0.871, 5.87	0.010
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.15	0.770	-0.359, 2.66	0.143
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.11	1.102	-3.27, 1.05	0.319
	Pseudo R square	0.077
social_connect	(Intercept)	27.7	1.576	24.7, 30.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.97	2.229	-6.34, 2.40	0.379
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.785	1.142	-1.45, 3.02	0.496
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.887	1.635	-4.09, 2.32	0.590
	Pseudo R square	0.016
shs_agency	(Intercept)	13.9	0.834	12.3, 15.5
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.40	1.180	-0.912, 3.71	0.239
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.278	0.774	-1.24, 1.79	0.721
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.408	1.107	-1.76, 2.58	0.715
	Pseudo R square	0.026
shs_pathway	(Intercept)	16.2	0.665	14.9, 17.5
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.943	0.940	-0.899, 2.78	0.319
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.343	0.590	-0.814, 1.50	0.564
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.402	0.845	-2.06, 1.25	0.637
	Pseudo R square	0.011
shs	(Intercept)	30.1	1.410	27.4, 32.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	2.34	1.994	-1.57, 6.25	0.244
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.624	1.235	-1.80, 3.04	0.616
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.020	1.768	-3.44, 3.48	0.991
	Pseudo R square	0.021
esteem	(Intercept)	12.9	0.237	12.4, 13.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.314	0.335	-0.971, 0.342	0.350
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.158	0.351	-0.531, 0.846	0.656
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.120	0.501	-0.863, 1.10	0.812
	Pseudo R square	0.015
mlq_search	(Intercept)	14.8	0.579	13.7, 15.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.229	0.819	-1.38, 1.83	0.781
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.382	0.669	-1.69, 0.930	0.571
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.348	0.957	-1.53, 2.22	0.718
	Pseudo R square	0.004
mlq_presence	(Intercept)	13.5	0.685	12.2, 14.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.171	0.968	-1.73, 2.07	0.860
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.123	0.736	-1.57, 1.32	0.869
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.193	1.053	-1.87, 2.26	0.855
	Pseudo R square	0.001
mlq	(Intercept)	28.3	1.150	26.1, 30.6
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.400	1.626	-2.79, 3.59	0.806
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.511	1.264	-2.99, 1.97	0.688
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.539	1.808	-3.00, 4.08	0.767
	Pseudo R square	0.003
empower	(Intercept)	19.1	0.679	17.8, 20.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.971	0.960	-0.911, 2.85	0.315
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.261	0.582	-1.40, 0.880	0.656
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.441	0.833	-2.07, 1.19	0.599
	Pseudo R square	0.014
ismi_resistance	(Intercept)	14.3	0.430	13.5, 15.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.571	0.607	-0.619, 1.76	0.349
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.173	0.557	-0.919, 1.27	0.757
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.302	0.796	-1.86, 1.26	0.706
	Pseudo R square	0.009
ismi_discrimation	(Intercept)	12.3	0.538	11.2, 13.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.86	0.761	-3.35, -0.366	0.017
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.518	0.502	-1.50, 0.467	0.309
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.931	0.719	-0.479, 2.34	0.203
	Pseudo R square	0.059
sss_affective	(Intercept)	10.6	0.631	9.33, 11.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.14	0.892	-2.89, 0.606	0.204
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.202	0.506	-0.790, 1.19	0.692
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.06	0.725	-2.48, 0.359	0.151
	Pseudo R square	0.046
sss_behavior	(Intercept)	10.5	0.639	9.23, 11.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.57	0.904	-3.34, 0.201	0.086
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.310	0.619	-1.52, 0.903	0.619
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.417	0.886	-2.15, 1.32	0.640
	Pseudo R square	0.054
sss_cognitive	(Intercept)	8.66	0.663	7.36, 9.96
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.771	0.938	-2.61, 1.07	0.413
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.02	0.510	0.021, 2.02	0.052
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.80	0.730	-3.23, -0.369	0.018
	Pseudo R square	0.043
sss	(Intercept)	29.7	1.800	26.2, 33.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-3.49	2.546	-8.48, 1.50	0.175
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.02	1.304	-1.54, 3.57	0.439
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-3.32	1.867	-6.98, 0.341	0.083
	Pseudo R square	0.052
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.35) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.14 (95% CI [2.74, 3.55], t(103) = 15.19, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 5.32e-15, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.57], t(103) = 1.82e-14, p > .999; Std. beta = -5.72e-16, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.47])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.71], t(103) = 0.47, p = 0.639; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.58])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.61, 1.02], t(103) = 0.49, p = 0.623; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.84])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.42) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.86 (95% CI [16.97, 18.75], t(103) = 39.31, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-1.00, 1.52], t(103) = 0.40, p = 0.689; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.57])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-1.52, 0.86], t(103) = -0.55, p = 0.584; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.32])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.81, 95% CI [-0.89, 2.51], t(103) = 0.93, p = 0.351; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.94])

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.71 (95% CI [28.05, 31.37], t(103) = 35.09, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.46, 95% CI [-0.89, 3.80], t(103) = 1.22, p = 0.224; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.76])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-1.24, 1.97], t(103) = 0.45, p = 0.654; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.39])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-2.11, 2.48], t(103) = 0.16, p = 0.874; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.49])

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.94 (95% CI [11.28, 12.60], t(103) = 35.43, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.68, 1.19], t(103) = 0.54, p = 0.590; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.60])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.64, 95% CI [-1.27, -8.63e-03], t(103) = -1.99, p = 0.047; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.63, -4.32e-03])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-0.40, 1.40], t(103) = 1.08, p = 0.279; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.70])

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.51 (95% CI [16.48, 18.55], t(103) = 33.11, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-1.32, 1.61], t(103) = 0.19, p = 0.849; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.51])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.92, 95% CI [-2.00, 0.16], t(103) = -1.67, p = 0.095; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.05])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.49, 95% CI [-0.06, 3.04], t(103) = 1.89, p = 0.059; Std. beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.96])

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.89 (95% CI [11.97, 13.80], t(103) = 27.70, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.63, 95% CI [-0.66, 1.92], t(103) = 0.96, p = 0.339; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.67])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.33, 1.27], t(103) = 1.16, p = 0.247; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.44])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.58, 95% CI [-0.57, 1.73], t(103) = 0.99, p = 0.323; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.60])

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.49) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.43 (95% CI [9.72, 11.14], t(103) = 28.74, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.83, 95% CI [-1.83, 0.18], t(103) = -1.61, p = 0.106; Std. beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-0.85, 0.08])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.58, 95% CI [-1.49, 0.33], t(103) = -1.25, p = 0.211; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.15])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.31, 95% CI [8.09e-03, 2.60], t(103) = 1.97, p = 0.049; Std. beta = 0.61, 95% CI [3.77e-03, 1.21])

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.85) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.00 (95% CI [27.70, 34.30], t(103) = 18.44, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.89, 95% CI [-6.55, 2.77], t(103) = -0.79, p = 0.428; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.28])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-2.22, 2.43], t(103) = 0.09, p = 0.929; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.24])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.74, 95% CI [-4.07, 2.59], t(103) = -0.43, p = 0.664; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.26])

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.84) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.51 (95% CI [20.89, 24.14], t(103) = 27.22, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-2.26, 2.32], t(103) = 0.02, p = 0.981; Std. beta = 5.82e-03, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.47])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.69, 95% CI [-1.91, 0.52], t(103) = -1.12, p = 0.261; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.11])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.56, 95% CI [-2.30, 1.17], t(103) = -0.63, p = 0.526; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.24])

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 25.37 (95% CI [23.40, 27.35], t(103) = 25.17, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [-1.99, 3.59], t(103) = 0.56, p = 0.575; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.61])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.02, 95% CI [-2.79, 0.74], t(103) = -1.13, p = 0.257; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.13])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.56, 95% CI [-1.96, 3.09], t(103) = 0.44, p = 0.663; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.53])

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.26 (95% CI [16.94, 21.57], t(103) = 16.29, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 3.11, 95% CI [-0.16, 6.39], t(103) = 1.86, p = 0.062; Std. beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.90])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [-1.59, 3.06], t(103) = 0.62, p = 0.537; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.43])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.26, 95% CI [-4.59, 2.07], t(103) = -0.74, p = 0.458; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.29])

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.43e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.89 (95% CI [9.63, 12.14], t(103) = 17.01, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.89, 95% CI [-0.89, 2.66], t(103) = 0.98, p = 0.328; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.72])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.62, 1.51], t(103) = 0.82, p = 0.410; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.41])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.14, 95% CI [-2.66, 0.38], t(103) = -1.47, p = 0.141; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.10])

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.37 (95% CI [13.48, 17.26], t(103) = 15.96, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.51, 95% CI [-3.18, 2.16], t(103) = -0.38, p = 0.706; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.39])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.03, 95% CI [-0.75, 2.80], t(103) = 1.13, p = 0.257; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.50])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.56, 95% CI [-4.11, 0.98], t(103) = -1.21, p = 0.228; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.18])

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.67e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.94 (95% CI [19.81, 24.07], t(103) = 20.21, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.89, 95% CI [-2.12, 3.90], t(103) = 0.58, p = 0.564; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.61])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-1.42, 2.61], t(103) = 0.58, p = 0.563; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.41])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.66, 95% CI [-4.54, 1.22], t(103) = -1.13, p = 0.258; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.19])

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.26 (95% CI [14.83, 17.69], t(103) = 22.28, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-1.28, 2.77], t(103) = 0.72, p = 0.472; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.64])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-1.23, 1.59], t(103) = 0.25, p = 0.801; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.37])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-1.70, 2.34], t(103) = 0.31, p = 0.757; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.55])

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.26 (95% CI [12.26, 14.25], t(103) = 26.16, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.91, 95% CI [-0.49, 2.32], t(103) = 1.28, p = 0.202; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.75])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.92, 95% CI [-2.01, 0.17], t(103) = -1.66, p = 0.098; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.05])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [-0.72, 2.40], t(103) = 1.06, p = 0.289; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.78])

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.66 (95% CI [15.69, 17.63], t(103) = 33.69, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.34, 95% CI [-0.03, 2.71], t(103) = 1.92, p = 0.055; Std. beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-9.25e-03, 0.90])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.61, 1.16], t(103) = 0.61, p = 0.544; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.39])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-1.48, 1.04], t(103) = -0.34, p = 0.732; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.35])

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.08. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.89 (95% CI [10.88, 12.89], t(103) = 23.11, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.03, 95% CI [0.60, 3.45], t(103) = 2.79, p = 0.005; Std. beta = 0.64, 95% CI [0.19, 1.10])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.90, 95% CI [-0.06, 1.85], t(103) = 1.85, p = 0.065; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.59])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.93, 95% CI [-2.29, 0.44], t(103) = -1.33, p = 0.183; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.73, 0.14])

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.08. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.54 (95% CI [26.77, 30.31], t(103) = 31.64, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 3.37, 95% CI [0.87, 5.87], t(103) = 2.64, p = 0.008; Std. beta = 0.61, 95% CI [0.16, 1.06])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.15, 95% CI [-0.36, 2.66], t(103) = 1.49, p = 0.135; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.48])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.11, 95% CI [-3.27, 1.05], t(103) = -1.01, p = 0.313; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.19])

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.85) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.74 (95% CI [24.65, 30.83], t(103) = 17.60, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.97, 95% CI [-6.34, 2.40], t(103) = -0.88, p = 0.376; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.25])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.78, 95% CI [-1.45, 3.02], t(103) = 0.69, p = 0.492; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.32])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.89, 95% CI [-4.09, 2.32], t(103) = -0.54, p = 0.587; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.24])

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.89 (95% CI [12.25, 15.52], t(103) = 16.65, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.40, 95% CI [-0.91, 3.71], t(103) = 1.19, p = 0.235; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.76])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-1.24, 1.79], t(103) = 0.36, p = 0.720; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.37])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-1.76, 2.58], t(103) = 0.37, p = 0.713; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.52])

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.23 (95% CI [14.93, 17.53], t(103) = 24.42, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.94, 95% CI [-0.90, 2.78], t(103) = 1.00, p = 0.316; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.72])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.81, 1.50], t(103) = 0.58, p = 0.561; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.39])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-2.06, 1.25], t(103) = -0.48, p = 0.635; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.32])

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 30.11 (95% CI [27.35, 32.88], t(103) = 21.35, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.34, 95% CI [-1.57, 6.25], t(103) = 1.17, p = 0.240; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.76])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.62, 95% CI [-1.80, 3.04], t(103) = 0.51, p = 0.614; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.37])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-3.44, 3.48], t(103) = 0.01, p = 0.991; Std. beta = 2.41e-03, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.42])

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.26) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.86 (95% CI [12.39, 13.32], t(103) = 54.30, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.97, 0.34], t(103) = -0.94, p = 0.348; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.70, 0.25])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.85], t(103) = 0.45, p = 0.654; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.61])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.86, 1.10], t(103) = 0.24, p = 0.811; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.80])

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.18e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.80 (95% CI [13.67, 15.93], t(103) = 25.57, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-1.38, 1.83], t(103) = 0.28, p = 0.780; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.54])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-1.69, 0.93], t(103) = -0.57, p = 0.568; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.27])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-1.53, 2.22], t(103) = 0.36, p = 0.716; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.65])

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.03e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.51 (95% CI [12.17, 14.86], t(103) = 19.74, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-1.73, 2.07], t(103) = 0.18, p = 0.859; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.52])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-1.57, 1.32], t(103) = -0.17, p = 0.868; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.33])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-1.87, 2.26], t(103) = 0.18, p = 0.855; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.56])

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.60e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.31 (95% CI [26.06, 30.57], t(103) = 24.63, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-2.79, 3.59], t(103) = 0.25, p = 0.806; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.53])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.51, 95% CI [-2.99, 1.97], t(103) = -0.40, p = 0.686; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.29])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-3.00, 4.08], t(103) = 0.30, p = 0.765; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.60])

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.11 (95% CI [17.78, 20.45], t(103) = 28.15, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.97, 95% CI [-0.91, 2.85], t(103) = 1.01, p = 0.312; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.71])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-1.40, 0.88], t(103) = -0.45, p = 0.654; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.22])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.44, 95% CI [-2.07, 1.19], t(103) = -0.53, p = 0.596; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.30])

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.46) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.13e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.31 (95% CI [13.47, 15.16], t(103) = 33.32, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.57, 95% CI [-0.62, 1.76], t(103) = 0.94, p = 0.347; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.70])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.92, 1.27], t(103) = 0.31, p = 0.756; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.50])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-1.86, 1.26], t(103) = -0.38, p = 0.704; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.50])

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.26 (95% CI [11.20, 13.31], t(103) = 22.79, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.86, 95% CI [-3.35, -0.37], t(103) = -2.44, p = 0.015; Std. beta = -0.58, 95% CI [-1.04, -0.11])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.52, 95% CI [-1.50, 0.47], t(103) = -1.03, p = 0.303; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.14])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.93, 95% CI [-0.48, 2.34], t(103) = 1.29, p = 0.196; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.72])

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.82) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.57 (95% CI [9.33, 11.81], t(103) = 16.75, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.14, 95% CI [-2.89, 0.61], t(103) = -1.28, p = 0.200; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.16])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.79, 1.19], t(103) = 0.40, p = 0.690; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.31])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.06, 95% CI [-2.48, 0.36], t(103) = -1.46, p = 0.143; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.09])

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.49 (95% CI [9.23, 11.74], t(103) = 16.40, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.57, 95% CI [-3.34, 0.20], t(103) = -1.74, p = 0.082; Std. beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-0.86, 0.05])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-1.52, 0.90], t(103) = -0.50, p = 0.617; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.23])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-2.15, 1.32], t(103) = -0.47, p = 0.638; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.34])

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.83) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.66 (95% CI [7.36, 9.96], t(103) = 13.06, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.77, 95% CI [-2.61, 1.07], t(103) = -0.82, p = 0.411; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.27])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.02, 95% CI [0.02, 2.02], t(103) = 2.00, p = 0.045; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [5.49e-03, 0.52])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.80, 95% CI [-3.23, -0.37], t(103) = -2.46, p = 0.014; Std. beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-0.83, -0.09])

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.85) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.71 (95% CI [26.19, 33.24], t(103) = 16.50, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.49, 95% CI [-8.48, 1.50], t(103) = -1.37, p = 0.171; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.78, 0.14])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.02, 95% CI [-1.54, 3.57], t(103) = 0.78, p = 0.435; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.33])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.32, 95% CI [-6.98, 0.34], t(103) = -1.78, p = 0.076; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.03])

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome	model	npar	AIC	BIC	logLik	deviance	Chisq	Df	p
recovery_stage_a	null	3	352.209	360.283	-173.105	346.209
recovery_stage_a	random	6	356.578	372.726	-172.289	344.578	1.631	3	0.652
recovery_stage_b	null	3	521.108	529.182	-257.554	515.108
recovery_stage_b	random	6	525.375	541.523	-256.688	513.375	1.733	3	0.630
ras_confidence	null	3	636.943	645.018	-315.472	630.943
ras_confidence	random	6	640.519	656.667	-314.260	628.519	2.424	3	0.489
ras_willingness	null	3	437.545	445.619	-215.772	431.545
ras_willingness	random	6	438.705	454.853	-213.352	426.705	4.840	3	0.184
ras_goal	null	3	541.806	549.880	-267.903	535.806
ras_goal	random	6	543.242	559.390	-265.621	531.242	4.564	3	0.207
ras_reliance	null	3	506.247	514.321	-250.124	500.247
ras_reliance	random	6	503.202	519.350	-245.601	491.202	9.046	3	0.029
ras_domination	null	3	472.423	480.497	-233.212	466.423
ras_domination	random	6	473.741	489.889	-230.870	461.741	4.683	3	0.197
symptom	null	3	762.409	770.483	-378.204	756.409
symptom	random	6	767.281	783.429	-377.640	755.281	1.128	3	0.770
slof_work	null	3	616.032	624.106	-305.016	610.032
slof_work	random	6	616.941	633.089	-302.471	604.941	5.091	3	0.165
slof_relationship	null	3	669.008	677.082	-331.504	663.008
slof_relationship	random	6	672.937	689.085	-330.468	660.937	2.072	3	0.558
satisfaction	null	3	713.450	721.524	-353.725	707.450
satisfaction	random	6	715.877	732.025	-351.939	703.877	3.573	3	0.311
mhc_emotional	null	3	566.714	574.788	-280.357	560.714
mhc_emotional	random	6	570.014	586.162	-279.007	558.014	2.699	3	0.440
mhc_social	null	3	663.025	671.099	-328.513	657.025
mhc_social	random	6	666.788	682.936	-327.394	654.788	2.237	3	0.525
mhc_psychological	null	3	688.665	696.739	-341.333	682.665
mhc_psychological	random	6	693.182	709.330	-340.591	681.182	1.483	3	0.686
resilisnce	null	3	604.751	612.825	-299.376	598.751
resilisnce	random	6	609.468	625.616	-298.734	597.468	1.284	3	0.733
social_provision	null	3	537.102	545.176	-265.551	531.102
social_provision	random	6	537.241	553.389	-262.621	525.241	5.861	3	0.119
els_value_living	null	3	517.111	525.185	-255.556	511.111
els_value_living	random	6	519.087	535.235	-253.544	507.087	4.024	3	0.259
els_life_fulfill	null	3	533.963	542.037	-263.982	527.963
els_life_fulfill	random	6	530.360	546.508	-259.180	518.360	9.603	3	0.022
els	null	3	647.719	655.793	-320.859	641.719
els	random	6	645.463	661.611	-316.732	633.463	8.255	3	0.041
social_connect	null	3	750.743	758.817	-372.371	744.743
social_connect	random	6	755.164	771.312	-371.582	743.164	1.578	3	0.664
shs_agency	null	3	631.082	639.156	-312.541	625.082
shs_agency	random	6	634.350	650.498	-311.175	622.350	2.732	3	0.435
shs_pathway	null	3	576.967	585.041	-285.483	570.967
shs_pathway	random	6	581.760	597.908	-284.880	569.760	1.207	3	0.751
shs	null	3	740.783	748.857	-367.391	734.783
shs	random	6	744.738	760.887	-366.369	732.738	2.044	3	0.563
esteem	null	3	383.907	391.981	-188.954	377.907
esteem	random	6	388.172	404.320	-188.086	376.172	1.735	3	0.629
mlq_search	null	3	564.158	572.232	-279.079	558.158
mlq_search	random	6	569.612	585.760	-278.806	557.612	0.545	3	0.909
mlq_presence	null	3	595.547	603.621	-294.773	589.547
mlq_presence	random	6	601.441	617.589	-294.720	589.441	0.106	3	0.991
mlq	null	3	710.199	718.273	-352.100	704.199
mlq	random	6	715.884	732.032	-351.942	703.884	0.316	3	0.957
empower	null	3	580.407	588.481	-287.204	574.407
empower	random	6	583.918	600.066	-285.959	571.918	2.489	3	0.477
ismi_resistance	null	3	506.406	514.480	-250.203	500.406
ismi_resistance	random	6	511.491	527.640	-249.746	499.491	0.915	3	0.822
ismi_discrimation	null	3	539.604	547.678	-266.802	533.604
ismi_discrimation	random	6	539.184	555.332	-263.592	527.184	6.420	3	0.093
sss_affective	null	3	562.849	570.923	-278.424	556.849
sss_affective	random	6	563.093	579.241	-275.547	551.093	5.756	3	0.124
sss_behavior	null	3	578.798	586.872	-286.399	572.798
sss_behavior	random	6	579.387	595.535	-283.694	567.387	5.410	3	0.144
sss_cognitive	null	3	572.675	580.749	-283.337	566.675
sss_cognitive	random	6	570.799	586.947	-279.400	558.799	7.875	3	0.049
sss	null	3	784.914	792.988	-389.457	778.914
sss	random	6	784.130	800.278	-386.065	772.130	6.784	3	0.079

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome	time	control			treatment			between
outcome	time	n	estimate	within es	n	estimate	within es	p	es
recovery_stage_a	1st	35	3.14 ± 1.22		35	3.14 ± 1.22		1.000	0.000
recovery_stage_a	2nd	20	3.28 ± 1.20	-0.137	19	3.48 ± 1.20	-0.343	0.597	-0.206
recovery_stage_b	1st	35	17.86 ± 2.69		35	18.11 ± 2.69		0.690	-0.125
recovery_stage_b	2nd	20	17.52 ± 2.61	0.162	19	18.59 ± 2.60	-0.232	0.204	-0.520
ras_confidence	1st	35	29.71 ± 5.01		35	31.17 ± 5.01		0.227	-0.546
ras_confidence	2nd	20	30.08 ± 4.44	-0.137	19	31.72 ± 4.40	-0.207	0.248	-0.615
ras_willingness	1st	35	11.94 ± 1.99		35	12.20 ± 1.99		0.591	-0.246
ras_willingness	2nd	20	11.30 ± 1.76	0.609	19	12.06 ± 1.74	0.134	0.182	-0.721
ras_goal	1st	35	17.51 ± 3.13		35	17.66 ± 3.13		0.849	-0.079
ras_goal	2nd	20	16.59 ± 2.83	0.508	19	18.23 ± 2.81	-0.315	0.073	-0.902
ras_reliance	1st	35	12.89 ± 2.75		35	13.51 ± 2.75		0.342	-0.474
ras_reliance	2nd	20	13.36 ± 2.38	-0.357	19	14.57 ± 2.36	-0.793	0.115	-0.911
ras_domination	1st	35	10.43 ± 2.15		35	9.60 ± 2.15		0.110	0.533
ras_domination	2nd	20	9.85 ± 2.05	0.373	19	10.33 ± 2.05	-0.467	0.470	-0.307
symptom	1st	35	31.00 ± 9.95		35	29.11 ± 9.95		0.430	0.495
symptom	2nd	20	31.10 ± 8.26	-0.028	19	28.48 ± 8.13	0.166	0.320	0.688
slof_work	1st	35	22.51 ± 4.89		35	22.54 ± 4.89		0.981	-0.014
slof_work	2nd	20	21.82 ± 4.10	0.349	19	21.29 ± 4.05	0.631	0.684	0.268
slof_relationship	1st	35	25.37 ± 5.96		35	26.17 ± 5.96		0.576	-0.274
slof_relationship	2nd	20	24.35 ± 5.19	0.349	19	25.71 ± 5.13	0.157	0.412	-0.466
satisfaction	1st	35	19.26 ± 6.99		35	22.37 ± 6.99		0.066	-0.802
satisfaction	2nd	20	19.99 ± 6.26	-0.189	19	21.84 ± 6.20	0.136	0.355	-0.477
mhc_emotional	1st	35	10.89 ± 3.79		35	11.77 ± 3.79		0.331	-0.505
mhc_emotional	2nd	20	11.33 ± 3.25	-0.254	19	11.08 ± 3.21	0.397	0.806	0.146
mhc_social	1st	35	15.37 ± 5.70		35	14.86 ± 5.70		0.707	0.174
mhc_social	2nd	20	16.40 ± 5.02	-0.348	19	14.32 ± 4.97	0.182	0.197	0.704
mhc_psychological	1st	35	21.94 ± 6.42		35	22.83 ± 6.42		0.566	-0.265
mhc_psychological	2nd	20	22.54 ± 5.66	-0.178	19	21.76 ± 5.61	0.320	0.668	0.232
resilisnce	1st	35	16.26 ± 4.32		35	17.00 ± 4.32		0.474	-0.316
resilisnce	2nd	20	16.44 ± 3.84	-0.077	19	17.50 ± 3.81	-0.213	0.388	-0.452
social_provision	1st	35	13.26 ± 3.00		35	14.17 ± 3.00		0.206	-0.498
social_provision	2nd	20	12.34 ± 2.75	0.502	19	14.09 ± 2.73	0.042	0.048	-0.959
els_value_living	1st	35	16.66 ± 2.93		35	18.00 ± 2.93		0.058	-0.917
els_value_living	2nd	20	16.93 ± 2.56	-0.187	19	18.05 ± 2.53	-0.036	0.171	-0.766
els_life_fulfill	1st	35	11.89 ± 3.04		35	13.91 ± 3.04		0.007	-1.279
els_life_fulfill	2nd	20	12.78 ± 2.68	-0.567	19	13.88 ± 2.66	0.018	0.201	-0.694
els	1st	35	28.54 ± 5.34		35	31.91 ± 5.34		0.010	-1.353
els	2nd	20	29.69 ± 4.59	-0.461	19	31.95 ± 4.54	-0.016	0.125	-0.907
social_connect	1st	35	27.74 ± 9.32		35	25.77 ± 9.32		0.379	0.537
social_connect	2nd	20	28.53 ± 7.78	-0.214	19	25.67 ± 7.66	0.028	0.251	0.778
shs_agency	1st	35	13.89 ± 4.93		35	15.29 ± 4.93		0.239	-0.556
shs_agency	2nd	20	14.16 ± 4.33	-0.110	19	15.97 ± 4.29	-0.272	0.193	-0.718
shs_pathway	1st	35	16.23 ± 3.93		35	17.17 ± 3.93		0.319	-0.492
shs_pathway	2nd	20	16.57 ± 3.41	-0.179	19	17.11 ± 3.38	0.030	0.620	-0.282
shs	1st	35	30.11 ± 8.34		35	32.46 ± 8.34		0.244	-0.585
shs	2nd	20	30.74 ± 7.22	-0.156	19	33.10 ± 7.14	-0.161	0.307	-0.590
esteem	1st	35	12.86 ± 1.40		35	12.54 ± 1.40		0.350	0.259
esteem	2nd	20	13.01 ± 1.40	-0.130	19	12.82 ± 1.40	-0.229	0.665	0.160
mlq_search	1st	35	14.80 ± 3.42		35	15.03 ± 3.42		0.781	-0.103
mlq_search	2nd	20	14.42 ± 3.19	0.172	19	14.99 ± 3.17	0.015	0.572	-0.260
mlq_presence	1st	35	13.51 ± 4.05		35	13.69 ± 4.05		0.860	-0.071
mlq_presence	2nd	20	13.39 ± 3.69	0.051	19	13.76 ± 3.67	-0.029	0.758	-0.150
mlq	1st	35	28.31 ± 6.80		35	28.71 ± 6.80		0.806	-0.096
mlq	2nd	20	27.80 ± 6.24	0.123	19	28.74 ± 6.20	-0.007	0.638	-0.225
empower	1st	35	19.11 ± 4.02		35	20.09 ± 4.02		0.315	-0.515
empower	2nd	20	18.85 ± 3.46	0.138	19	19.38 ± 3.42	0.372	0.632	-0.281
ismi_resistance	1st	35	14.31 ± 2.54		35	14.89 ± 2.54		0.349	-0.305
ismi_resistance	2nd	20	14.49 ± 2.44	-0.092	19	14.76 ± 2.44	0.069	0.731	-0.144
ismi_discrimation	1st	35	12.26 ± 3.18		35	10.40 ± 3.18		0.017	1.135
ismi_discrimation	2nd	20	11.74 ± 2.80	0.317	19	10.81 ± 2.77	-0.252	0.301	0.566
sss_affective	1st	35	10.57 ± 3.73		35	9.43 ± 3.73		0.204	0.699
sss_affective	2nd	20	10.77 ± 3.17	-0.124	19	8.57 ± 3.13	0.526	0.031	1.349
sss_behavior	1st	35	10.49 ± 3.78		35	8.91 ± 3.78		0.086	0.778
sss_behavior	2nd	20	10.18 ± 3.35	0.153	19	8.19 ± 3.32	0.360	0.066	0.985
sss_cognitive	1st	35	8.66 ± 3.92		35	7.89 ± 3.92		0.413	0.469
sss_cognitive	2nd	20	9.68 ± 3.31	-0.621	19	7.11 ± 3.26	0.474	0.016	1.564
sss	1st	35	29.71 ± 10.65		35	26.23 ± 10.65		0.175	0.831
sss	2nd	20	30.73 ± 8.88	-0.243	19	23.93 ± 8.75	0.548	0.018	1.623

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(97.32) = 0.00, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-0.58 to 0.58)

2st

t(104.75) = 0.53, p = 0.597, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.56 to 0.97)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(94.09) = 0.40, p = 0.690, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.02 to 1.53)

2st

t(104.81) = 1.28, p = 0.204, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.59 to 2.72)

ras_confidence

1st

t(79.93) = 1.22, p = 0.227, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-0.93 to 3.84)

2st

t(103.61) = 1.16, p = 0.248, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (-1.16 to 4.45)

ras_willingness

1st

t(79.52) = 0.54, p = 0.591, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.69 to 1.21)

2st

t(103.38) = 1.34, p = 0.182, Cohen d = -0.72, 95% CI (-0.36 to 1.87)

ras_goal

1st

t(82.35) = 0.19, p = 0.849, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-1.35 to 1.63)

2st

t(104.54) = 1.81, p = 0.073, Cohen d = -0.90, 95% CI (-0.16 to 3.43)

ras_reliance

1st

t(77.55) = 0.96, p = 0.342, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.68 to 1.94)

2st

t(101.73) = 1.59, p = 0.115, Cohen d = -0.91, 95% CI (-0.30 to 2.71)

ras_domination

1st

t(91.32) = -1.61, p = 0.110, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-1.85 to 0.19)

2st

t(104.90) = 0.73, p = 0.470, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.83 to 1.78)

symptom

1st

t(73.83) = -0.79, p = 0.430, Cohen d = 0.49, 95% CI (-6.62 to 2.85)

2st

t(95.16) = -1.00, p = 0.320, Cohen d = 0.69, 95% CI (-7.83 to 2.59)

slof_work

1st

t(74.63) = 0.02, p = 0.981, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-2.30 to 2.36)

2st

t(97.10) = -0.41, p = 0.684, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-3.12 to 2.06)

slof_relationship

1st

t(77.92) = 0.56, p = 0.576, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-2.04 to 3.64)

2st

t(102.11) = 0.82, p = 0.412, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-1.92 to 4.64)

satisfaction

1st

t(81.07) = 1.86, p = 0.066, Cohen d = -0.80, 95% CI (-0.21 to 6.44)

2st

t(104.14) = 0.93, p = 0.355, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-2.10 to 5.81)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(76.76) = 0.98, p = 0.331, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-0.92 to 2.69)

2st

t(100.79) = -0.25, p = 0.806, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-2.31 to 1.80)

mhc_social

1st

t(79.21) = -0.38, p = 0.707, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-3.23 to 2.20)

2st

t(103.17) = -1.30, p = 0.197, Cohen d = 0.70, 95% CI (-5.25 to 1.09)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(79.32) = 0.58, p = 0.566, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-2.17 to 3.94)

2st

t(103.24) = -0.43, p = 0.668, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-4.36 to 2.80)

resilisnce

1st

t(80.52) = 0.72, p = 0.474, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-1.31 to 2.80)

2st

t(103.91) = 0.87, p = 0.388, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (-1.37 to 3.49)

social_provision

1st

t(84.19) = 1.28, p = 0.206, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.51 to 2.34)

2st

t(104.86) = 2.00, p = 0.048, Cohen d = -0.96, 95% CI (0.02 to 3.50)

els_value_living

1st

t(78.38) = 1.92, p = 0.058, Cohen d = -0.92, 95% CI (-0.05 to 2.73)

2st

t(102.54) = 1.38, p = 0.171, Cohen d = -0.77, 95% CI (-0.49 to 2.74)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(79.36) = 2.79, p = 0.007, Cohen d = -1.28, 95% CI (0.58 to 3.48)

2st

t(103.27) = 1.29, p = 0.201, Cohen d = -0.69, 95% CI (-0.60 to 2.80)

els

1st

t(76.93) = 2.64, p = 0.010, Cohen d = -1.35, 95% CI (0.83 to 5.91)

2st

t(101.00) = 1.55, p = 0.125, Cohen d = -0.91, 95% CI (-0.64 to 5.16)

social_connect

1st

t(74.18) = -0.88, p = 0.379, Cohen d = 0.54, 95% CI (-6.41 to 2.47)

2st

t(96.06) = -1.16, p = 0.251, Cohen d = 0.78, 95% CI (-7.77 to 2.05)

shs_agency

1st

t(78.83) = 1.19, p = 0.239, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-0.95 to 3.75)

2st

t(102.90) = 1.31, p = 0.193, Cohen d = -0.72, 95% CI (-0.93 to 4.54)

shs_pathway

1st

t(77.80) = 1.00, p = 0.319, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.93 to 2.81)

2st

t(101.99) = 0.50, p = 0.620, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-1.62 to 2.70)

shs

1st

t(77.48) = 1.17, p = 0.244, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-1.63 to 6.31)

2st

t(101.65) = 1.03, p = 0.307, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (-2.20 to 6.93)

esteem

1st

t(100.60) = -0.94, p = 0.350, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-0.98 to 0.35)

2st

t(104.79) = -0.43, p = 0.665, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.08 to 0.69)

mlq_search

1st

t(86.36) = 0.28, p = 0.781, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.40 to 1.86)

2st

t(104.99) = 0.57, p = 0.572, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-1.44 to 2.59)

mlq_presence

1st

t(83.39) = 0.18, p = 0.860, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.75 to 2.10)

2st

t(104.75) = 0.31, p = 0.758, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.97 to 2.70)

mlq

1st

t(84.23) = 0.25, p = 0.806, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-2.83 to 3.63)

2st

t(104.86) = 0.47, p = 0.638, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-3.01 to 4.89)

empower

1st

t(77.02) = 1.01, p = 0.315, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.94 to 2.88)

2st

t(101.12) = 0.48, p = 0.632, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-1.66 to 2.72)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(92.27) = 0.94, p = 0.349, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.64 to 1.78)

2st

t(104.86) = 0.34, p = 0.731, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.28 to 1.82)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(79.02) = -2.44, p = 0.017, Cohen d = 1.14, 95% CI (-3.37 to -0.34)

2st

t(103.04) = -1.04, p = 0.301, Cohen d = 0.57, 95% CI (-2.69 to 0.84)

sss_affective

1st

t(75.76) = -1.28, p = 0.204, Cohen d = 0.70, 95% CI (-2.92 to 0.63)

2st

t(99.28) = -2.18, p = 0.031, Cohen d = 1.35, 95% CI (-4.21 to -0.20)

sss_behavior

1st

t(79.96) = -1.74, p = 0.086, Cohen d = 0.78, 95% CI (-3.37 to 0.23)

2st

t(103.63) = -1.86, p = 0.066, Cohen d = 0.98, 95% CI (-4.11 to 0.13)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(75.05) = -0.82, p = 0.413, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-2.64 to 1.10)

2st

t(97.99) = -2.44, p = 0.016, Cohen d = 1.56, 95% CI (-4.66 to -0.48)

sss

1st

t(74.17) = -1.37, p = 0.175, Cohen d = 0.83, 95% CI (-8.56 to 1.59)

2st

t(96.04) = -2.41, p = 0.018, Cohen d = 1.62, 95% CI (-12.41 to -1.20)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(51.97) = 1.14, p = 0.520, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.26 to 0.94)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(49.89) = 0.76, p = 0.898, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.78 to 1.73)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(42.51) = 0.66, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.15 to 2.25)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(42.32) = -0.43, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-0.81 to 0.53)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(43.67) = 1.00, p = 0.642, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.58 to 1.72)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(41.39) = 2.50, p = 0.033, Cohen d = -0.79, 95% CI (0.20 to 1.90)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(48.28) = 1.52, p = 0.268, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.23 to 1.68)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(39.67) = -0.52, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-3.10 to 1.83)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(40.04) = -1.98, p = 0.110, Cohen d = 0.63, 95% CI (-2.54 to 0.03)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(41.56) = -0.50, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-2.33 to 1.41)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(43.05) = -0.43, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-2.99 to 1.94)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(41.02) = -1.25, p = 0.438, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-1.82 to 0.43)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(42.17) = -0.58, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-2.42 to 1.35)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(42.22) = -1.01, p = 0.634, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-3.20 to 1.06)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(42.79) = 0.68, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.99 to 1.99)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(44.57) = -0.14, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.23 to 1.08)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(41.78) = 0.11, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-0.88 to 0.99)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(42.24) = -0.06, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.04 to 0.98)

els

1st vs 2st

t(41.10) = 0.05, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-1.56 to 1.64)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(39.83) = -0.09, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-2.47 to 2.27)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(41.99) = 0.86, p = 0.788, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.92 to 2.29)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(41.51) = -0.10, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.28 to 1.17)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(41.36) = 0.51, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.92 to 3.21)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(54.48) = 0.77, p = 0.891, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.45 to 1.00)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(45.66) = -0.05, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.42 to 1.35)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(44.17) = 0.09, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-1.46 to 1.60)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(44.59) = 0.02, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-2.59 to 2.65)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(41.14) = -1.17, p = 0.495, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-1.91 to 0.51)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(48.82) = -0.22, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-1.28 to 1.02)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(42.08) = 0.80, p = 0.858, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.63 to 1.46)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(40.56) = -1.65, p = 0.213, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-1.91 to 0.19)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(42.53) = -1.14, p = 0.519, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-2.01 to 0.56)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(40.23) = -1.49, p = 0.290, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-1.84 to 0.28)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(39.83) = -1.72, p = 0.188, Cohen d = 0.55, 95% CI (-5.01 to 0.41)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(50.92) = 0.47, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.45 to 0.73)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(48.99) = -0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.56 to 0.90)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(42.14) = 0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.29 to 2.03)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(41.96) = -1.98, p = 0.109, Cohen d = 0.61, 95% CI (-1.29 to 0.01)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(43.22) = -1.66, p = 0.208, Cohen d = 0.51, 95% CI (-2.04 to 0.20)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(41.10) = 1.15, p = 0.511, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.36 to 1.30)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(47.51) = -1.24, p = 0.440, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-1.52 to 0.36)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(39.49) = 0.09, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-2.30 to 2.51)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(39.84) = -1.12, p = 0.538, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-1.95 to 0.56)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(41.26) = -1.13, p = 0.530, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-2.85 to 0.80)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(42.65) = 0.61, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.67 to 3.14)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(40.76) = 0.82, p = 0.833, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.65 to 1.54)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(41.83) = 1.13, p = 0.532, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.81 to 2.86)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(41.87) = 0.58, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.49 to 2.67)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(42.41) = 0.25, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-1.28 to 1.64)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(44.06) = -1.65, p = 0.213, Cohen d = 0.50, 95% CI (-2.05 to 0.21)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(41.47) = 0.60, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.64 to 1.19)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(41.89) = 1.84, p = 0.146, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-0.09 to 1.89)

els

1st vs 2st

t(40.83) = 1.49, p = 0.289, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.41 to 2.71)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(39.65) = 0.69, p = 0.994, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.53 to 3.10)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(41.66) = 0.36, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.29 to 1.85)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(41.21) = 0.58, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.85 to 1.54)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(41.07) = 0.50, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.88 to 3.13)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(53.26) = 0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.55 to 0.87)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(45.07) = -0.57, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-1.74 to 0.97)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(43.69) = -0.17, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.61 to 1.37)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(44.08) = -0.40, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-3.07 to 2.05)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(40.87) = -0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.44 to 0.92)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(48.00) = 0.31, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.96 to 1.30)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(41.74) = -1.03, p = 0.621, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-1.54 to 0.50)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(40.33) = 0.40, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.82 to 1.23)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(42.16) = -0.50, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-1.56 to 0.94)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(40.02) = 2.00, p = 0.106, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (-0.01 to 2.05)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(39.64) = 0.78, p = 0.881, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-1.62 to 3.66)

Pathway Summary

Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Measurement

Table

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Text

Likelihood ratio tests

Post hoc analysis

Table

Between group

Within treatment group

Within control group

Plot

Clinical significance